I meant by that- Beyond the 'paradox' of increasing boundary length with scale of consideration there is an inability to continue with increasing precision due to lack of definite, defined description of what is and isn't in the categories differentiated by the boundary; and lack of precision in regard to what to do about the region of uncertainty where precise differentiation is not possible..

    Dear Georgina,

    How were you able to respond to my comment if you did not see my comment clearly displayed on a surface? All of my scientific research has concluded that finite humanly contrived science am only abstract guesswork about finite invisible influences. Naturally produced reality am not finite guesswork. Only one real single visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed, and will continue to exist for ever.

    Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      Georgi,

      I like to phrase it that; 'light' is just as dark as any other region of the spectrum'. It's the response of our retina's that begins the process of perception we call sight. The final answer to how that happens as a matter of consciousness remains a puzzle.

      Where I think the right question might be found about differentiating between matter and energy, that boundary you seek, is where gravitational action is present throughout regions of intense electric and/or magnetic response, but those responses do not extend all the way through the gravitational domain. The physical rotational axis of the 'hard' part of a particle might well be coupled with that of another gravitationally, yet beyond the electromagnetic distance of separation. It would then be a case that the characteristic properties of primary forces are a physical consequence of energy density, how it behaves across density, and that we have it backwards... gravity only seems to be the weakest force. At the quantum level where energy density becomes extreme, the gravitational response is at its greatest! :-) jr

      Gee Joe,

      If you are correct in that there aren't any unseen things that ever exist; then how could I possibly see what you write unless I watch you write it?

      Joe i saw the product of my sensory system which showed me the instructions because there had been differences in intensity of the light received from the black and white areas of the screen display. The sensory product was categorically different from the surface of the screen from which the light was emitted.

      Georgina,

      Yes, I'd say that illustrates it well and then indefinite might go to imperfect. And there is also the indefinite interface of oceanS, begetting laminar flow. Indefinite perfection might be seen as a result of an exponential opportunity for imperfection as scale ON a continuum becomes smaller. Imagine a very 'edge' of the universe that was at a physically least density of energy which would seek the absolute void but is constrained by light velocity limit and the scale seeking zero. The energy continuum would become so imperfect that it would not retain cohesion and thus form an indefinitely perfect boundary.

      Gads! that is getting 'out there'. :-)

      Dear John and Georgina,

      There are no abstract invisible "things." You do not have to watch me writing. All you have to do is answer yes or no when I ask you if you have ever seen any kind of a surface when you looked around you. If you answered yes, then you only have to ask yourself: Was the surface I saw infinite or finite? Obviously, as whatever surface you saw was constantly changing, the surface you saw must have been infinite. Infinity must only ever be singular. That iam why I am confident that my research of reality am boilerplate correct: The real Universe consists only of one singular unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

      It is physically impossible to see any kind of infinite surface with any sort of finite abstract "product of any (invisible) sensory system ."

      Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      Joe,

      I think I ought to word my reply my precisely.

      I saw the product of my sensory system which showed me the instructions, appearing black and white to me, because there had been differences in intensity of the light received from different areas of the screen display. The sensory product was categorically different from the surface of the screen from which the light was emitted. Clarifying that the black and white are attributes of the sensory product.

      How do you see Joe?

      Dear Georgina,

      Reality has got nothing to do with how I try to roughly describe it by using the finite constraints imposed on me by my use of the English language. Please answer this question. Do you think that the earth had a surface a million or so years ago when dinosaurs (each of whom also had a complete surface) existed on the planet? You will have to answer "Yes," because only one single unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light could ever have existed.

      Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

      Joe, language and how it is used is important for conveying meaning. 'Surface' has a meaning to me. I can contemplate a surface without it being infinite or eternal just by the fact of it being a surface. Yes I do think there have been surfaces that have existed prior to the ability of humans to produce sensory products that enable their perception. I do think there are surfaces that exist independently of human, and other sentient being (or device's) sensory detection, and from perception. As we understand the external world by differentiating objects we also differentiate their surfaces. That does not mean that there might not be continuity between them rather than any utterly empty space. Which would help with explanation of of foundational forces. However that continuity of something-ness does not make the surfaces of all differentiated objects one surface.

        solving the conundrum may additionally require appreciating ambiguities approximately the belief of time in quantum concept. even though time is an essential component inside the equations of quantum mechanics, academic dissertation writing assistance there is no definition that's natively quantum, says Maccone. instead, time is whatever the clock on the lab wall says it's far.

        Dear Georgina and John and Andrew,

        Humanly contrived language am an abstract finite code that only concerns supposedly finite invisible influences. I did not ask you if you or I thought that the earth could have had a visible surface a million or so years ago when dinosaurs existed on the planet. Obviously, the real earth did have a real visible surface at that real time as did each and every one of the real dinosaurs. All of the many finite languages have only ever been produced by man, and every one of those finite abstract languages have always been in a constant INFINITE state of changes. My scientific research has concluded that there must only be one single unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

        Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

        Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 19, 2017 @ 13:41 GMT: "Please answer this question. Do you think that the earth had a surface a million or so years ago when dinosaurs (each of whom also had a complete surface) existed on the planet?"

        Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 21, 2017 @ 15:50 GMT: "I did not ask you if you or I thought that the earth could have had a visible surface a million or so years ago when dinosaurs existed on the planet."

        This kind of contradiction makes it impossible to carry on a reasonable conversation with you. A scientific model has to be open to scrutiny and defended on its superior merits, and the failings of those arguments that oppose it, not mere refutation and word games.

        Dear Georgina,

        All finite language am contradictory. Reality has nothing whatsoever to do with what you or I think it might be. Let me try another track. Please name for me one real finite activity that could be carried out only by any single real visible living organism that does not require the direct observation of any single finite part of a real visible surface.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Georgina,

        All finite language am contradictory. Reality has nothing whatsoever to do with what you or I think it might be. Let me try another track. Please name for me one real finite activity that could be carried out only by any single real visible living organism that did not require the direct observation of any single finite part of a real visible surface.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

          Dear Joe, if reality has nothing to do with what you think it might be, why are you wasting everyone's time telling them what it is?

          OH! OH! Ms. Woodward Ms. Woodward! I know Iknow!

          It's to keep you reacting to him. jrc

          John, I said that out of frustration. I think he might have been trying to convey the idea that there is something that exists that is separate from vision and thought, that cannot be adequately described with language. A bit like:

          "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

          The name that can be named is not the eternal name

          The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

          The named is the mother of myriad things" from Tao Te Ching (Classic text)

          Once we start differentiating objects and naming them, the external world becomes somewhat understandable to our feeble senses and minds. Yet the categorization is based on our perception and likely inadequate to fully represent what is there. Then again he may have meant nothing of the sort as I have so far failed to find any agreement with Joe.